ABSTRACT: Development has always been flexible and open ended with reference to specific definition. It is
difficult concept with different interpretations varying by time, space, discipline and people. Different regions
have different resource base and endowments caused dissimilar growth.Development disparity is a ubiquitous
phenomenon. This research paper gives a fresh look on development disparity among hill states. In this
analysis, the social development has been inferred using female literacy, rural development from the nonagricultural rural workforce and economic development from degree of urbanization in post reform period. The
study concluded that Mizoram has been socially and economically the most developed while Sikkim is the most
developed across hill states in terms of rural development. On contrary to it, Jammu& Kashmir, Himachal
Pradeshand Mizoram are the least developed in social, economic and rural development respectively across
Indian hill states in post reform period. It reflects the gap of development and direction of development in
Indian hill states.
INTRODUCTION
It is established fact that in a large economy, different regions have different resource base and
endowments caused dissimilar growth. Development disparity is a ubiquitous phenomenon at global, continent,
country and province levels. At global level countries have been categorized into developed, developing and
underdeveloped realm. Even highly developed nations have pockets of less developed sub-region and vice
versa. The poor countries are characterized by large and growing regional disparities and rich countries are
generally characterized by small and diminishing gap (Williamson, 1965).
The United Nations observed sixties as first development decade which stimulated the thought process
of development among scholars, researchers etc. The geographic interest emerged with the growing realization
that vast country like India has geographical diversities of a high order. It requires sectoral and regional
development approaches in order to optimize economic efficiency and minimize existing development
disparities.
In context of India, the British oriented governance came to end on the eve of Independence of India, 1947. The
planned era started with the commencement of First Five Year Plan. Indian economy experienced sluggish growth (3.5% per
annum) in first three decades. The public sector was major player and engine of growth. The government used to regulate the
private sector and its activities with licensing requirements. Through licensing the government determined the scale,
technology, location of investment etc. The partial liberalization started in the second half of eighties but following a foreign
exchange crisis in 1991, a complete paradigm shift took place by the announcement of new policy by Union Government in
July, 1991.The neo-liberal policy encompassed substantial changes in industrial licensing and regulatory policy, tax, trade,
investment and fiscal policies. The crux of policy was a greater thrust on privatization and globalization of Indian economy.
During eighties and last decade of 20th century attained an impressive growth rate of nearly 6 per cent.
The regions which are better in infrastructure (both material infrastructure and human resources) can perform
better as compared to that of backward or lagging regions. Developed regions do better due to the externalities.
Consequently, development disparities increase in consonance with economic growth in developing countries.
LITERATURE
Schwartzberg (1962) examined the spatial pattern of economic development during fifties. He observed
a peculiar feature of the Indian development and identified six types of areas: (a) isolated tribal economy (b)
subsistence peasant economy(c) incipient commercialization (d) advanced commercialization (e) economic
diversification and (f) large scale organization. The important manufacturing, commercial or administrative
centers i.e. Kanpur, Hyderabad and Jaipur, whose level of growth did not reflect the development of their
surrounding areas.
www.ijhssi.org
47 | Page
Sengupta et al. (2008) concluded that Indian economy witnessed a higher growth in the gross domestic
product associated with rising concentration of money and wealth. The recent growth has been benefited a few
and led to increasing disparities and inequalities (Gustafsson et al. 2008; Dev and Ravi 2007; Sengupta et al.
2008; Bhaduri 2008). Sarkar et al. (2010) concluded that India witnessed a widening of income inequality
during the phase of acceleration in economic growth in post reform period (1994-95 to 2004-05). Most of
studies of development disparity were conducted on major states of India, all states of India, state level and intra
state level.
Based on the literature, it is found the research work covering all the Indian hill States on development
disparity is scanty. The interstate development disparity emerging among hill states needs detailed investigation
to trace the evolving patterns and trends.
Objective
The major objective of thisresearch paperis to:
What are the patterns and trends of development disparity among Indian hill states?
Significance of the Study
Development disparity breeds regional tensions because the backward regions carry a feeling of neglect
and discrimination. To redress development disparity is essential for maintaining an integrated social and
economic fabric of the country without which the country may be faced with a situation of discontent, anarchy
and breakdown of law and order. The study of development disparity in Indian Hill states will provide an insight
into the processes of development and unfold the real nature and intensity of problems at state level. The present
study on development disparity may be useful for policy makers and planners.
Period and Unit of Study
The development disparities in the hill states will be studied covering three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001 and
2011. India has adopted policy of liberalization, privatization and globalization since 1990s. The free play of market
accentuates spatial disparities of development. It attracts the considerable research interest to know the level of development
disparity in Indian hill states in post reform period. The state level data shall be used for interstate comparison. The data for
new state (Uttarakhand) shall be adjusted in order to make them comparable for all the three points of time.
www.ijhssi.org
48 | Page
www.ijhssi.org
49 | Page
Map 1
(a) Urbanization
The settlement which qualifies the criteria determined by Census of India is known as urban settlement. It includes
(a) all statutory places like municipality, corporation, cantonment board, notified town area committee etc. (b) a minimum
population of 5000; at least 75 per cent of male working population engaged in non- agricultural activities and population
density of at least 400 persons/km2.
Table 1: Select Socio- economic Indicators of Indian Hill States (1991, 2001 & 2011)
Hill states
2011
J&K
H. P.
Uttarakhand*
Sikkim
Arunachal
Nagaland
Manipur
Mizoram
Tripura
Meghalaya
Hill States
Urbanization
(per cent)
1991
2001
DNA
24.80
8.69
9.80
23.14
25.67
9.10
11.07
12.80
20.75
17.21
17.23
27.52
26.58
46.10
49.63
15.30
17.06
18.60
19.58
18.44
23.17
2011
27.38
10.03
30.23
25.15
22.94
28.86
32.45
52.11
26.17
20.07
25.53
2011
56.43
75.93
70.01
75.61
57.70
76.11
72.37
89.27
82.73
72.89
69.18
www.ijhssi.org
50 | Page
www.ijhssi.org
51 | Page
Map 2
(c) Rural Non-Agricultural Main Workers
The worker who works for six months or more in non-agricultural activity in rural settlement is known
as rural non-agriculture main workers. The proportion of rural non-agricultural main workersto the total workers
reflects level the transformation of rural agrarian economy to manufacturing and service economy. The
transformation of rural economy leads to an overall rural development, economically and socially. It is for this
reason onlythe proportion of rural non-agricultural main workers has been taken as indicator of rural
development in the present study.
It has been observed that a marginal increase has been recorded in rural non-agricultural main workers
to total workforce in hill states in post reform period. It increased from 21.63 per cent in 1991 to 26.84 per cent
in 2011 over the period of 20 years of economic reforms. It reflects small increase in rural development in the
corresponding period of time. It is heart rendering to the policy makers and planners. However, there is wide
variation across the hill states. It is pertinent to mention that Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Manipur are
only hill states which recorded the gradual rise in rural non-agriculture workforce in post reform period. On
contrary to it, Arunachal Pradesh is lone hill state where rural non-agriculture workforce decreased after neoliberalization.
www.ijhssi.org
52 | Page
.
Map 3
Trends and Patterns of Development
Let us look at the trends and patterns of spatial development in post reform period with different
dimensions. In the present analysis development has been viewed as social, economic and rural development
with the help of select indicator in the post reforms period.
(a) Social Development
The interstate disparities of social development have been identified on the basis of development index.
This was done for all the hill sates of India for three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001 and 2011. The results
obtained are presented in Table 2.
The finding shows that the hill states as a whole recorded its relative development index of social
development among all hill states of India at three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001 and 2011. It decreased from
0.37 in 1991 to 0.33 in 2001. It reflects that the development disparity increases during the last decade of
previous century. Further, it reported an increase from 0.33 in 2001 to 0.39 in 2011. It indicates that the
development disparity decreases during the first decade of twenty first century in the region.
www.ijhssi.org
53 | Page
Map 4
Table 2:Levels of Social Development (1991-2011)
Hill States
1991
Jammu&Kashmir
Mizoram
Nagaland
Development Index
DNA
1.00
0.51
Rank
DNA
1
2
Development Index
0.00
1.00
0.42
Rank
10
1
4
Development Index
0.00
1.00
0.60
Rank
10
1
3
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.35
0.31
0.25
0.00
0.37
0.61
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.56
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.38
0.38
0.01
0.33
0.64
2
3
5
6
8
7
9
0.59
0.80
0.49
0.58
0.50
0.41
0.04
0.39
0.57
4
2
7
5
6
8
9
Himachal Pradesh
Tripura
Manipur
Sikkim
Meghalaya
Uttarakhand
Arunachal Pradesh
Hill states
Disparity Ratio
2001
2011
www.ijhssi.org
54 | Page
1991
2001
2011
11
Figure 1
(b) Economic Development
The relative economic development of hill states has been viewed through urbanization in post reform
period. Development index of economic development was worked out for three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001,
and 2011 across hill states.
The finding shows that the hill states as a whole recorded its relative development index of economic
development at three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001 and 2011. It recorded an increase from 0.26 in 1991, 0.29 in
2001 to 0.37 in 2011. It reflects that the economic development disparity decreases during the last two decades
(1991-2011).
There is wide variation of economic development across hill states. Mizoram recorded the highest
relative economic development across hill states. On contrary to it, Himachal Pradesh consistently maintained
their lowest position of relative economic development among hill states since 1991. The development index of
Meghalaya (0.26) was similar to the development index of all hill states in 1991. The states of Nagaland,
Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh recorded lower relative development index than that
of all hill states in 1991. On the other hand, Mizoram, Manipur andUttarakhand have higher development index
www.ijhssi.org
55 | Page
Map 5
Table 3:Economic Development
Hill States
Mizoram
Manipur
Uttarakhand
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Tripura
ArunachalPradesh
Sikkim
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Hill States
Disparity Ratio
1991
Development Index
1.00
0.50
0.39
0.26
0.23
0.18
0.11
0.01
0.00
DNA
0.26
0.97
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
2001
Development Index
1.00
0.42
0.40
0.25
0.19
0.18
0.27
0.03
0.00
0.38
0.29
0.86
www.ijhssi.org
Rank
1
2
3
6
7
8
5
9
10
4
-
2011
Development Index
1.00
0.53
0.48
0.24
0.45
0.38
0.31
0.36
0.00
041
0.37
0.57
Rank
1
2
3
9
4
6
8
7
10
5
-
56 | Page
Census
Years
R
a
n5
k
1991
2001
2011
Hill States
Figure 2
Figure 2 depicts the rank position of relative economic development among hill states over last 20
years. Mizoram, Manipur and Uttarakhand consistently maintained their top positions of relative economic
development among hill states since 1991. On contrary to this, Himachal Pradesh recorded the lowest rank in
economic development across hill states in the corresponding period. There is wide variation of economic
development across hill states. Meghalaya and Jammu & Kashmir lowered its relative position regularly during
1991-2011.
An analysis of development index in last two decades reveals that the development process has been uneven across
hill states. It recorded substantial decrease in disparity ratio from 0.97 in 1991, 0.86 in 2001 to 0.57 in 2011. It reflected that
the convergence took place in terms of economic development in hill states as a whole (Table 3).
At the hill state level, Sikkim and Tripura have registered the highest development indices (either 1.00
or near to it) in last two decades (1991-2011). Whereas, Mizoram consistently recorded the lowest development
index in the corresponding period. Two out of ten states (Uttarakhand and Manipur) have been improving their
relative development indices since 1991.Uttarakhand and Manipur have registered development indices 0.40
and 0.56 in 1991, 0.45 and 0.68 in 2001 and 0.62 and 0.77 in 2011 respectively. It reflects that the relative pace
of development in both states has been increasing over time. On contrary to it, Arunachal Pradesh has been
registered a decline in relative development index from 0.97 in 1991, 0.56 in 2001 to 0.54 in 2011. It reflects
that the state has recorded a continuous decline in terms of relative pace of rural development in past two
decades (1991-2011). The states of Himachal Pradesh and Meghalaya reported a decline in relative development
index in last decade of the previous century and an increase in the subsequent decade while Nagaland has a
reverse trend in corresponding period of time.
www.ijhssi.org
57 | Page
Map 6
Table 4: Rural development
Hill States
Sikkim
Tripura
1991
Development
Index
1.00
0.97
1
2
2001
Development
Index
1.00
1.00
Arunachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh
Manipur
Meghalaya
Uttarakhand
Nagaland
0.97
0.57
0.56
0.43
0.40
0.09
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.56
0.49
0.68
0.31
0.45
0.30
5
6
4
8
7
9
0.54
0.61
0.77
0.43
0.62
0.23
7
6
4
8
5
9
Mizoram
Jammu & Kashmir
0.00
DNA
9
-
0.00
0.76
10
3
0.00
0.93
10
2
Hill States
Disparity Ratio
0.53
0.64
0.58
0.55
0.68
0.50
Rank
www.ijhssi.org
2011
Rank
Rank
2
1
Development
Index
1.00
0.90
1
3
58 | Page
3
CENSUS
YEARS
1991
2001
2011
9
11
Figure: 3
An analysis of development index in last two decades reveals that the development process has been
uneven across hill states. The disparity ratio has been worked out from the development indices at three points
of time i.e.1991, 2001, and 2011. It recorded substantial decrease in disparity ratio from 0.64 in 1991, 0.55 in
2001 to 0.50 in 2011. It reflected that the convergence took place in terms of rural development in hill states as a
whole (Table 4).
CONCLUSIONS
After above analysis it is concluded that the Indian hill states experienced different relative positions in
different dimensions of development i.e. social, economic and rural development in post reform period.It is
observed that Mizoram has been socially and economically the most developed while Jammu &Kashmir and
Himachal Pradesh are the least developed in social and economic development respectively among Indian hill
states. On contrary to it, Mizoram is the least developed and Sikkim the most developed among hill states in
terms of rural development.It reflects the gap of development and direction of development in Indian hill states
in post reform period.
The social development index of all hill states as a whole was 0.37 in 1991, 0.33 in 2001 and 0.39in
2011.The finding reflects that the social development disparity increases during the last decade of previous
century. Further, it decreases during the first decade of twenty first century in the region.
The research reveals that the hill states as a whole recorded its relative development index of economic
development at three points of time i.e. 1991, 2001 and 2011. It recorded an increase consistently from 0.26 in
1991, 0.29 in 2001 to 0.37 in 2011. It reflects that the economic development disparity decreases during the last
two decades (1991-2011).
The result shows that all hill states of India as a whole has recorded a persistent increase in rural
development index since 1991. It increased from 0.53 in 1991, 0.58 in 2001 to 0.68 in 2011. It reflects that
development disparity in rural development has a decline in the post reform period. It is concluded from this
research thatthe convergence took place in terms of economic, social and rural development in hill states as a
whole in the first decade of this century.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
Ahluwalia, Montek S (2000): Economic Performance of States in Post-Reforms Period, Economic and Political weekly,
Vol. XXXV, pp.1637-48.
Ahluwalia, Montek S (2002): State Level Performance Under Economic Reforms in India in Anne O Krueger
(ed),Economic Political Reforms and the Indian Economy, oxford University Press,NewDelhi,pp. 91-125.
Bhaduri, A (2008): Predatory Growth, Economic & Political Weekly,VOL.XLIII, pp.10-14.
Cashin, P and R Sahay (1996): Internal Migration. Centre-State Grants, and Economic Growth in the States of India, IMF
Staff Papers, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp 23-71.
www.ijhssi.org
59 | Page
[20].
[21].
[22].
[23].
[24].
[25].
[26].
[27].
[28].
[29].
Choudhary, M.D. (1970) Regional Income Accounting Economic distance among regions, Economic Development and
Cultural Change, Vol. 4, pp. 527-544.
Dhar, P.N. and D.U. Sastry (1969), Inter-State Variation in Industry, 1951-61, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. No. 12.
Davis, K. (1955): Social and Demographic Aspects of economic development in India, in Simoson Kuznets, et al. (eds)
Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan, Duke University Press, Durham, pp.263-315.
Dev, Mahendra S and G Ravi (2007): Poverty and Inequality: All India and States, 1983-2005, Economic & Political
Weekly,Vol.XLII 42, pp.509-21.
Dholakia, R (1994): Spatial Dimension of Acceleration of Economic Growth in India, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. XXXIX, pp. 2303-09.
Dreze, J. and Sen (1995): Economic Development and Social Opportunity, New Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Ghosh, B, S Marjit and C Neogi (1998): Economic Growth and Regional Divergence in India, 1960 to 1995, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 1623-30.
Gustafsson, B, A L Shi and T Sicular (2008): Inequality and Public Policy in China (New York: Cambridge University
Press).
HDR (2013): The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World United Nations Development Programme,
pp.4-5.
Lahiri, R.K. (1969), some aspects of Inter-State Disparity in Industrialization in India, SankhyaSeries B, December.
Marjit, S and S Mitra (1996): Convergence in Regional Growth Rates: Indian Research Agenda, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. XXXI,pp. 2239-42.
Nair, K.G.R. (1971) A note of Interstate Income Differentials in India, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7, PP.
441-47.
Nagaraj, R. AristomeneVaroudakis and Marie-Ange Veganzones (1998): Long-Run growth trends and convergence across
Indian States, OECD Technical Papers No.131, January.pp 1-58.
Raman, J (1996): Convergence or Uneven Development: A Note on Regional Development in India, Valparaiso
University, US, mimeographed.
Rao, Hemlata (1972), Identification of Backward Regions and the Study of Trends in Regional Disparities in India, Paper
presented at the Seminar on Regional Imbalances: Problems and Policies at Indian Institute of Public Administration, New
Delhi.
Rao, M Govinda, R T Shand and K P Kalirajan (1999): Convergence of Income Across Indian States- A Divergent View,
Economic and Political Weekly,Vol. XXXIV.pp.769-778
Rao, S.K. (1973) A Note on Measuring Economic Distances between Regions in India, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. VIII, pp. 793-800.
Sampath, R.K. (1977), Inter-state Inequalities in Income 1951-1971, Indian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Sampath, R.K. (1977) Interstate Inequalities in Income in India, Indian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 9.
Sarker, P C (1994): Regional Imbalances in Indian Economy over Plan Periods, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
XXIX, pp. 621-33.
Sengupta, A, K P Kannan and G Raveendran (2008): Indias Common People: Who Are They, How Many Are They and
How Do They Live?Economic& Political Weekly, XLIII.pp. 49-63.
Shand, Ric and S Bhide (2000): Source of Economic Growth- Regional Dimension of Reforms, Economic and Political
Weekly, October 14, pp.3747-57.
Venkataramiah,P. (1969), Interstate Variation in Industry, 1951-61: A Comment, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 4,
August, 1969.
Williamson, J.G. (1965), Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns,
Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 13, No. 4, part II, July.
(1968), Rural Urban and Regional Imbalances in Economic Development, Economic Development and Cultural Change,
Vol. 17, October.
www.ijhssi.org
60 | Page